2023 Meredith Tax Rate & Bills Coming Today

[Winilyme]

My situation's nearly exact what GarySanFran's is. I knew there'd be an increase but 72%? What a joke. Unclear what I'm getting for that. Maybe a decent fireworks display versus the fiasco this past July.

I don't care how the system works; in my mind it's flawed. I'll pay $23.6K annual for 1,500 SF seasonal. We'll make a bit of that up via reduced restaurant and other venue visits.

[John Mercier]

You are getting capital gains on your property.

Real Estate professionals say location! location! location!

Locations that have better police or fire service tend to be more highly valued. Reasonable road access increases value. And good schools increase value. But generally the lakes are creating the value.

But even nearby snowmobile trails can increase the value... that is why the Realtors promote those certain features.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

... I don't care how the system works; in my mind it's flawed. ...

Ignorance of how government and taxation works is VERY dangerous. That is how a state ends up like Vermont, Massachusetts's, New York, California, ...

When people are unhappy, politicians will rush in to tell you there is a "easy" fix. They will add a general income or sales tax and lower the property tax. When the money starts flowing in, other "problems" will arise and some of the money will be diverted to "help". Then it becomes NECESSARY to raise all the new tax rates AND the property tax and business taxes. Soon you notice city and county taxes have appeared and weird taxes you have never heard of before. When the tax rate become painful, debt is allowed to build up. Businesses start leaving seeking lower tax rates. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER is spending significantly or permanently slashed.

THAT is how the system works. Voters are tempted by slick politicians and gobble up the tax slop like pigs at a troth, not knowing or caring to know that they are being raised for slaughter.

[Chimi]

Any TAXPAYER in a city or town should have the right to vote on the budgets for that particular city or town. This would not allow voting for elected officials in local state or federal elections, but rather just give the taxpayer a say in how their dollars are spent in the town to which the taxes are paid. Current system is bogus and flawed, and somehow must be challenged and changed.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...esentation.asp

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Any TAXPAYER in a city or town should have the right to vote on the budgets for that particular city or town. This would not allow voting for elected officials in local state or federal elections, but rather just give the taxpayer a say in how their dollars are spent in the town to which the taxes are paid. Current system is bogus and flawed, and somehow must be challenged and changed.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...esentation.asp

As a stockholder in most large corporations... and many more small ones... I am a taxpayer in thousands of towns/cities, counties, and even countries.
Do I get a vote in all of them?

As pointed out. The residents of the town that voted on the budget did not add additional costs that they did not need to add in accordance with local inflation... what occurred was the market value of some properties rose higher than others. That was not caused by the residents of the town... that was caused by the desire of non-residents.

The ''problem'', if such exists, is with non-residents.
Areas that have very little ''demand'' from non-resident generally see budgetary increases due to inflation, but do not see property valuations tilt.
Any homeowner can live here, and declare their residency here... so why aren't they doing it? The system is not stopping it... it is a choice of the property owner... so the system is not flawed; it provides a choice.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

As a stockholder in most large corporations... and many more small ones... I am a taxpayer in thousands of towns/cities, counties, and even countries.
Do I get a vote in all of them?

As pointed out. The residents of the town that voted on the budget did not add additional costs that they did not need to add in accordance with local inflation... what occurred was the market value of some properties rose higher than others. That was not caused by the residents of the town... that was caused by the desire of non-residents.

The ''problem'', if such exists, is with non-residents.
Areas that have very little ''demand'' from non-resident generally see budgetary increases due to inflation, but do not see property valuations tilt.
Any homeowner can live here, and declare their residency here... so why aren't they doing it? The system is not stopping it... it is a choice of the property owner... so the system is not flawed; it provides a choice.

A system that results in a 72% RE tax increase overnight and potentially results in longtime residents having no choice but to sell a lakefront home that's been in their family for 50 or more years is flawed.

It lacks humanity.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

A system that results in a 72% RE tax increase overnight and potentially results in longtime residents having no choice but to sell a lakefront home that's been in their family for 50 or more years is flawed.

It lacks humanity.

A 72% increase would have me appealing my assessment PDQ! That’s insane!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

A 72% increase would have me appealing my assessment PDQ! ThatÂ’s insane!

Some of the increases in assessments seemed excess, so not bad advice.
But one should temper their reaction to any outcome.

Some towns overall valuations jumped pretty high... and certain categories went ballistic.

Meredith increased by 63% from 2020 (the last assessment).
The highest category was boat slips. Boat slips in general were up 71.73% with Bayshore being up 96.71%

Waterfront was up 70.05% in general, with Lake Wicwas at 82.99%, Lake Waukewan at 79.09%, Lake Winnisquam up 74.09%, Lake Winnipesuakee up 70.39%... and the only ones seeing less than the general increase being the Island category - up only 59.95%; meaning taxation got shifted away from them.

Non-waterfront Single Family did OK coming in at 55.46%, Multi-family at 38.59%, and Commercial/Industrial at 33.05%.

Vacant land took the biggest hit after waterfront at 86.20%, and even Manufactured Homes in a Park saw a slight increase at 64.31% compared to the 63% general valuation increase.

[jeffk]

Spending may indeed be elevated over the last 50 years but it's NOT the fault of local governments. Local spending increases are a response to larger forces.

Here's a tidbit:
"During the observation period from 1960 to 2022, the average inflation rate was 3.8% per year. Overall, the price increase was 903.96%. An item that cost 100 dollars in 1960 costs 1,003.96 dollars at the beginning of 2023. For November 2023, the year-over-year inflation rate was 3.1%."

The price of everything combined has gone up 10 fold since 1960. So looking back to inflating taxes since then and claiming local spending is "out of control" is mostly placing the blame in the wrong place. Inflation is mostly caused by ONE major factor, government spending beyond income from taxes, deficit spending. The fault for this lies largely with the Federal government and then with many state governments. Local governments are not immune to the effects. Saying that local governments should refuse to increase local spending to cover inflated costs is absurd. Could you get someone to plow the town roads for 1/10 the accepted modern costs? No. The roads would not get plowed. The kids would not get taught. You couldn't afford to buy new fire equipment or computers or police cars or hire anyone to do anything.

Mostly, local costs have been swept along in a rising inflationary tide that is irresistible.

That doesn't mean that local governments don't try to sneak in the occasional Taj Mahal purchase and citizens MUST be watchful. But the budgets will continue to increase and some required spending will spike a budget here and there. Knee jerk reactions against increased budgets are not helpful.

As to the canard that non residents should be able to vote locally, frankly, YOU don't live here. YOU don't HAVE to live here. YOU could vote down the school budget and YOUR kids wouldn't suffer. YOU could vote down the highway budget and not suffer too much from broken and poorly plowed roads. YOU wouldn't suffer too much from reduced fire and police coverage. RESIDENTS, impacted by these choices should and must make these decisions.

As a result, YOUR taxes will go up, proportionately more than many residents. The funny thing is, people ARE voting to do enter or stay within the existing tax situation. They are voting by making their highly inflated purchases of vacation property or continuing to remain owners of such property. The exploding prices of vacation real estate (and resulting shift of taxes to the owners of such property) and the rising taxes due to inflation have made this more painful but still they are here. That may slow and rebalance in the future as it has in the past. However, the driving forces of inflation will continue to raise local costs and budgets MUST rise to meet them.

[tis]

Jeffk, while it is true prices have gone crazy in 50 years there have been things added to town budgets that weren't around-at least in such crazy numbers-and one that comes to mind is recreation budgets for the towns. I would like to see a comparison of those from 50 year ago. Now before I get attacked, I love recreation but I question if the kind of taxes spent on it is really a need, not a want. Everybody has their pet projects and that is the issue.

[Major]

It's more than inflation. The size of government has grown exponentially since 1960. I've used the Laconia schools as examples before. Laconia Middle School has roughly three times the staff than when I went to Memorial Middle School 45 years ago, even though enrollment numbers are much lower. Every school is that way. And it doesn't end with schools, go to the town hall. It is chock-full of staff members toiling away on their computers. Same with the courts. I assisted my family with probating a family member's estate so I have become intimately familiar with the local probate court. The office is staffed by six or so people, and although they are very helpful and pleasant, it appears that one or two would be sufficient. Certainly, given that it takes at least two months to rule on anything indicates that there is an efficiency problem even though it seems more than adequately staffed.

At every level, the size of government has grown beyond what is needed. NH was a state that had limited government and limited resources. It used to heed to Ronald Reagan's famous line "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.'" Government doesn't have a very good track record of solving society's problems.

So while I agree we must adapt to changing times, we must fight against bad change. There are too many examples of present-day government policies that are harming us to list. Those of us who want limited government must go out and vote or participate in the process.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Major

It's more than inflation. The size of government has grown exponentially since 1960. I've used the Laconia schools as examples before. Laconia Middle School has roughly three times the staff than when I went to Memorial Middle School 45 years ago, even though enrollment numbers are much lower. Every school is that way. And it doesn't end with schools, go to the town hall. It is chock-full of staff members toiling away on their computers. Same with the courts. I assisted my family with probating a family member's estate so I have become intimately familiar with the local probate court. The office is staffed by six or so people, and although they are very helpful and pleasant, it appears that one or two would be sufficient. Certainly, given that it takes at least two months to rule on anything indicates that there is an efficiency problem even though it seems more than adequately staffed.

At every level, the size of government has grown beyond what is needed. NH was a state that had limited government and limited resources. It used to heed to Ronald Reagan's famous line "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.'" Government doesn't have a very good track record of solving society's problems.

So while I agree we must adapt to changing times, we must fight against bad change. There are too many examples of present-day government policies that are harming us to list. Those of us who want limited government must go out and vote or participate in the process.

It's interesting that Reagan gets cited often when it comes to small government and fiscal responsibility. If you look at the numbers, the number of government employees (and not just the military as they account for about 1/4 of the growth) increases significantly. Moreover, the national debt went from about $900 billion to over $2.5 trillion. Not a criticism of the Reagan years, just an observation.

To me this is a large part of the problem as I am not wasteful nor are the politicians I support. Instead, it's everyone else and all the politicians I don't support...

As to allowing non resident property owners to vote, I say no. I am a non resident property owner in NH and while I would love to have a say, I don't want the wealthy, part-time non residents in my town to vote. I can't have it both ways, so come down on the side of allowing voting in the town (and state) where you are a resident.

[Biggd]

We are starting to move this thread into a political scrum.
We should stick to the initial thread of Meredith taxes.
Local politics should be restricted to their own thread and national politics should be restricted all together on the Winni forum, there are other forums for that.

[ishoot308]

This entire thread is getting taxing….

Dan

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

This entire thread is getting taxing….

Dan

We can expect these threads to get more taxing in the new year.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Biggd

We are starting to move this thread into a political scrum.
We should stick to the initial thread of Meredith taxes.
Local politics should be restricted to their own thread and national politics should be restricted all together on the Winni forum, there are other forums for that.

Not my intent and agree. Taxes, local or not, are a hot button issue. For me, I recognize how fortunate I am that a grandparent had the foresight to buy island property almost 100 years ago. Taxes have gone up as has the assessment. There is no way I could afford to buy today, so i am doing everything I can to fund a trust so my children will be able to enjoy the property without worrying about taxes and carrying costs.

[DEJ]

What's the over/under on who get's the last word in?

[John Mercier]

The tax collector always gets the last word in.

The assessment numbers are interesting because they show the ebb and flow of what the general population views as valuable through the window of the market.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The tax collector always gets the last word in.

When did you become a tax collector?

[Major]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Not my intent and agree. Taxes, local or not, are a hot button issue. For me, I recognize how fortunate I am that a grandparent had the foresight to buy island property almost 100 years ago. Taxes have gone up as has the assessment. There is no way I could afford to buy today, so i am doing everything I can to fund a trust so my children will be able to enjoy the property without worrying about taxes and carrying costs.

We may be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but you are a good dude. That's a very nice thing to do for your kids and grandkids. I am sure it is a sacrifice, but well worth it in my opinion. Good job!

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Not my intent and agree. Taxes, local or not, are a hot button issue. For me, I recognize how fortunate I am that a grandparent had the foresight to buy island property almost 100 years ago. Taxes have gone up as has the assessment. There is no way I could afford to buy today, so i am doing everything I can to fund a trust so my children will be able to enjoy the property without worrying about taxes and carrying costs.

Very admirable, many properties change hands because families are split up all over the country and it places a financial burden on the ones that can't use it.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Biggd

Very admirable, many properties change hands because families are split up all over the country and it places a financial burden on the ones that can't use it.

I'm very fortunate that through good decisions by previous generations I am in a position to help the next generation. My thought is that by putting the property in an irrevocable trust, perhaps with a dissolution clause that can be enacted at some point in the future, with funding to cover the carrying costs, or at least a good portion of them, the property does not become a burden on the next generation and instead can be enjoyed by all.

I'm not smart enough to do this myself so am working with a lawyer who specializes in this type of thing. I figure it makes sense to do so now when everyone gets along!

[NHskier]

For those interested in researching historical town and school district spending, UNH hosts a repository of digitized annual reports which in some cases go back many years (Meredith from the mid 1920s).

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I'm very fortunate that through good decisions by previous generations I am in a position to help the next generation. My thought is that by putting the property in an irrevocable trust, perhaps with a dissolution clause that can be enacted at some point in the future, with funding to cover the carrying costs, or at least a good portion of them, the property does not become a burden on the next generation and instead can be enjoyed by all.

I'm not smart enough to do this myself so am working with a lawyer who specializes in this type of thing. I figure it makes sense to do so now when everyone gets along!

As you can see in the Meredith assessment averages, Island properties may have already reached their peak. The average growth in that category was lower than the average for the town.

It doesn't mean that taxes will not increase, but other then the outcome of the court hearings, the actual taxation should begin to moderate in years going forward.

Laconia's CPI-Urban tax cap helps limit exceptional budget growth even in the other towns within the county. CPI-Urban was unusually high; we hadn't seen that since the late 70s early 80s.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I'm not smart enough to do this myself so am working with a lawyer who specializes in this type of thing. I figure it makes sense to do so now when everyone gets along!

Garcia, May you live long and prosper. This is not a one year project, and now is the time to get grandchildren to fall in love with the lake. Happyu to chat offline.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

A system that results in a 72% RE tax increase overnight and potentially results in longtime residents having no choice but to sell a lakefront home that's been in their family for 50 or more years is flawed.

It lacks humanity.

I think you mean a 72% assessment increase...
A property that saw a 63% assessment increase in Meredith would be paying almost the same portion as it did before. The only increase would be what they voted for at town/school meeting and what the county had to procure. These being much lower than 72%

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I think you mean a 72% assessment increase...
A property that saw a 63% assessment increase in Meredith would be paying almost the same portion as it did before. The only increase would be what they voted for at town/school meeting and what the county had to procure. These being much lower than 72%

No. Our assessment increased 97%. Pre-re-assessment annual RE taxes = $13.1K (paid in two installments/year). Post pre-re-assessment annual RE taxes = $11.5K (installment 1) + $11.1K (estimated installment #2) for a total of $22.6K or a 72% increase.

Our place is small. 92% of our assessment is based on the value of our land - .30A.

[John Mercier]

If the average base assessment was 63% increase, and your assessment was a 97% increase, then your taxes should have gone to $17.6K

If you paid half of the $13.1K in July, roughly $6550, your current bill would be for the remaining $11K

Your annual taxes would be $17.6K

The July is an estimate base on previous assessment and budget.

Your new annual tax would be $17.6K, old $13.1K, with an actual increase of $4.5K

Not that this should make you feel better... but that is the math.

Barring a new assessment, a failure of the Legislature to fix the State ED, or some new expenditure at the town/county that is extraordinary... the July bill should be about $8.8K

The property would be assessed around $1.76M

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If the average base assessment was 63% increase, and your assessment was a 97% increase, then your taxes should have gone to $17.6K

If you paid half of the $13.1K in July, roughly $6550, your current bill would be for the remaining $11K

Your annual taxes would be $17.6K

The July is an estimate base on previous assessment and budget.

Your new annual tax would be $17.6K, old $13.1K, with an actual increase of $4.5K

Not that this should make you feel better... but that is the math.

Barring a new assessment, a failure of the Legislature to fix the State ED, or some new expenditure at the town/county that is extraordinary... the July bill should be about $8.8K

The property would be assessed around $1.76M

Well, if that’s the math then, yes, you have made me feel at least a little bit better, John. Thanks.